Colorado § 13-22-225 - Judgment on award - attorney fees and litigation expenses.

§ 13-22-225. Judgment on award - attorney fees and litigation expenses.

(1) Upon granting an order confirming, vacating without directing a rehearing, modifying, or correcting an award, the court shall enter a judgment in conformity therewith. The judgment may be recorded, docketed, and enforced as any other judgment in a civil action.

(2) A court may award the reasonable costs of the motion and subsequent judicial proceedings.

(3) On the application of a prevailing party to a contested judicial proceeding under section 13-22-222, 13-22-223, or 13-22-224, the court may add reasonable attorney fees and other reasonable expenses of litigation incurred in a judicial proceeding after the award is made to a judgment confirming, vacating without directing a rehearing, modifying, or correcting an award.

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1730, § 1, effective August 4.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 13-22-216 as it existed prior to 2004.

ANNOTATION

Annotator's note. Since § 13-22-225 is similar to § 13-22-216 as it existed prior to the 2004 repeal and reenactment of this part 2, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.

Arbitration award is tantamount to a judgment. Judd Constr. Co. v. Evans Joint Venture, 642 P.2d 922 (Colo. 1982); Container Tech. v. J. Gadsden Pty., 781 P.2d 119 (Colo. App. 1989).

A judgment confirming an arbitration award is enforceable in the same manner as any other judgment. Therefore, the district court did not err in ordering post-judgment interest on the unpaid portion of the judgment. Barrett v. Inv. Mgmt. Consultants, 190 P.3d 800 (Colo. App. 2008).

District court erred in granting costs in favor of plaintiff. Where plaintiff did not petition court to confirm the arbitration award pursuant to subsection (2) and is not the prevailing party to a contested judicial proceeding under subsection (3), plaintiff is not entitled to costs of the court proceedings. Levy v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 293 P.3d 40 (Colo. App. 2011).

Collateral estoppel and res judicata apply to arbitration proceedings. To determine whether an arbitration proceeding should be given preclusive effect, the court looks to the factors of the collateral estoppel test. Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, bars relitigation of an issue determined in a prior proceeding if: (1) The issue precluded is identical to an issue actually determined in the prior proceeding; (2) the party against whom estoppel is asserted has been a party to or is in privity with a party in the prior proceeding; (3) there is a final judgment on the merits in the prior proceeding; and (4) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding. Dale v. Guar. Nat'l Ins. Co., 948 P.2d 545 (Colo. 1997); Barnett v. Elite Props. of Am., 252 P.3d 14 (Colo. App. 2010).

Collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of issues decided in an arbitration proceeding if the traditional collateral estoppel test has been met. Guar. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Williams, 982 P.2d 306 (Colo. 1999); Barnett v. Elite Props. of Am., 252 P.3d 14 (Colo. App. 2010).

While certiorari is unresolved, arbitration proceeding is not final for issue preclusion purposes. Certiorari can be resolved in any of three ways: (1) The parties fail to file a timely petition for certiorari; (2) the court denies the petition for certiorari; or (3) the court issues an opinion after granting certiorari. Barnett v. Elite Props. of Am., 252 P.3d 14 (Colo. App. 2010).